who's up for popcorn?

[Tejas]

thread:

New Boston, NH Police Chief abuses power

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/90808-New-Boston-NH-Police-Chief-abuses-power

I have a customer that left a large collection of firearms here at MFLR on October 2009 for consignment.

I get a call today from the New Boston Police Chief saying that the my customer has just had a Domestic Violence Petition served,and that he was coming to MFLR to confiscate his firearms. I told him that I would not turn over the firearms,as they were in my bound book,and legally mine until they sold. Furthermore, I told him that my customer could not get them back because: A. I'm aware of the petition, and B. He can't pass a background check with the petition in effect. This arrogant SOB threatened to have me arrested because he claimed that he had a "court order". I explained that the court order was to take firearms away from my customer,not me. Well, didn't matter to him.

-------------------------------------------------


article:

Seizure at firing range triggers dispute

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Seizure+at+firing+range+triggers+dispute&articleId=b1ebdcaa-4448-47d1-b4fa-c38cb8a1c80a

New Boston Police Chief Christopher L. Krajenka seized nine guns from the Manchester Firing Line Range where they were for sale on a consignment basis by Michael Murphy of New Boston.

Under federal law, McLoud argues, the guns belong to him until they are sold because they are entered in his "bound book," a record of all of his firearms transactions.

-------------------------------------------------



Any guesses as to who will prevail?
Are there ATF regs to deal with this type of situation?

Being that local LEO's have seen fit to store firearms with McLoud in the past, why did Krajenka not mention this to the Judge? Is Krajenka grandstanding or "just doing his job"?

[donco6]

1. Guesses who will prevail - hmmm -

Not You.

[Tejas]

2. Ah, our first cryptic answer to the question at hand.

Lonely much?

[donco6]

3. Just answering the question.

Isn't that what you asked?

[rd_kent]

4. And the ass-hattery begins.....

[donco6]

6. Just sayin'

I mean, one guy against the ATF? I suppose it's possible, but it's going to take a shitload of money to defend against that monolithic, secretive organization - even if he DOES eventually win. No?

[PavePusher]

7. He isn't up against the BATFE.

Reading. Comprehension.

He's up against a Chief of Police playing fast and loose with the Federal and State Constitutions, written law, due process and the limits of his jurisdiction. Possibly the judge as well, but the available evidence there is pretty ambiguous right now.

[donco6]

8. Sorry, I read where he asked if there were ATF regs to govern this.

Never mind. He will prevail triumphantly.

[PavePusher]

12. My apologies for the snarky snipe.

Another tough day at work, and I let it bleed over a bit.

I do think he'll win out... if he gets a judge who understands the intent of the Constitution.

[donco6]

13. No prob.

I don't have much faith in a little guy winning out over anyone these days. That was really where I was going with my post. Not at all clear, obviously, and I didn't read the article, which was stupid in the first place.

[TheWraith]

15. The OP is not involved.

He's simply republishing the personal account of the range owner and a news story about it.

[donco6]

16. Yeah, I saw that later.

My post was a mistaken reading of the situation.

[TheWraith]

17. I thought you'd probably figured it out...

But I wanted to clarify in case anyone else made the same mistake.

[rd_kent]

5. This is interesting. I see merit on both sides here.......

Gonna be a tough one, I think, there are so many overlapping laws for both sides of the argument.

[Tejas]

14. Leaning towards the Judge being

in error.

If he wasn't told that the weapons were in the hands of someone that had stored weapons for LEO's before and therefor in "safe hands", then it's on whoever withheld or simply didn't voluteer that info.

Guessing here, but I'm thinking it's a no-brainer that he knew and simply made a (very) dumb decision.

[safeinOhio]

9. I'd try this

Excuse me one moment while I call my lawyer for advise.

[rd_kent]

11. Hahaha! +1000

[Tim01]

10. This story needs to be on ALL of the gun boards. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. McLoud needs to do two things

1: Lawyer up
2: Complain vigorously to the ATF
3: Report that proctologists' delight of a police chief to the FBI

[Truth2Tell]

22. That's three things. nt

[Tejas]

19. Odd that the CoP didn't blink at

the concept of the Bound Book. Seems he would've at least called the DA, then the DA call the Judge.


Krajenka: "BATFE, who cares!"

[pipoman]

20. I suspect that the judge would either return

the guns to the store owner and allow for the guns to be liquidated by the prohibited person. The point of the 'court order' is to deprive the guy access to the guns, not take valuables from the guy. Also much depends what exactly a 'Domestic Violence Petition' is. Is it a standard paper in a divorce case (civil) in MA? Is it a criminal complaint in MA?

[Euromutt]

21. Strikes me that the GCA of 1968 and pursuant regulation didn't take consignment into account

Bluntly, McLoud is wrong: consignment means that the goods remain the property of the consignor, in this case Mr. Murphy. The guns were under McLoud's control, but they are not not his property; in the event that McLoud sold the guns, he would still have to pay Murphy the money made from sale (minus McLoud's commission). And in the event that Murphy's guns were not sold, Murphy could take them back (were he not currently subject to a restraining order).

However, that doesn't mean Krajenka isn't grandstanding. The guns were not under Murphy's control, and McLoud is correct that in the current circumstances, he could not legally return the guns to Murphy even though they are, legally, Murphy's property.

Moreover, the guns were consigned to McLoud for the express purpose of selling them, i.e. removing them from Murphy's ownership. With regard to any threat presented by Murphy to his wife and children, Krajenka arguably took exactly the wrong course of action by confiscating the guns, because when the TRO against Murphy expires, the New Boston PD will have to return the guns to Mr. Murphy. If the guns had remained in McLoud's control, he could have sold them, thereby removing them from Murphy's ownership; there is no better way of ensuring that the guns could not return to Murphy's control.